Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Government have finally admitted to front-loading payments to Mauritius for their surrender deal, caving in to Prime Minister Ramgoolam’s demands since he took office in November. Yet they still refuse to disclose the amount or clarify which budgets will cover the lease, economic partnership and Chagossian trust fund. Why the secrecy? Will the Minister disclose the details now? Will he also confirm whether the statement from the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct in saying that concessions have been made, including the loss of sovereign rights on Diego Garcia and of unilateral lease renewal provisions? When will this horrific deal finally come to Parliament, and what time will be provided to debate it? Or, better still, why does the Minister not dump the deal completely and keep Chagos British?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member neglects to remind the House that it was his Government who started negotiations on this matter, because they recognised that our national security interests and those of our allies were under threat. A financial element was crucial to protecting the operation of that crucial base. Once the treaty is signed, and after ratification in the usual way, it will be put before both Houses for scrutiny, and it will of course include costs. The Government will not scrimp on our security. Protecting the British people is our No. 1 priority.
Stephen Doughty
As I have said, a financial element—let us remember that this is over 99 years—was crucial to protect the operation of the base. If we do not pay for our security, somebody else might attempt to get in there. That is one crucial reason we have worked closely with Mauritius, the United States and other allies and partners, including India, to protect our base on Diego Garcia.
UK-China Relations
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. UK-China relations will be increasingly important as we progress, and as the threat of China becomes more evident. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It seems there is a consensus about the threat that China poses, although it is not entirely unanimous; the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) seems to have a slightly different approach. I believe that China is one of the greatest threats—if not the greatest threat—to our freedom and security, which is why it is vital to address this issue.
China is a nation with a proud history and a rich civilisation, deserving of respect—but that respect cannot come at the expense of turning a blind eye to aggression, human rights abuses and attempts to undermine the international order. The Government have announced that they are conducting a China audit, but we are yet to hear what that actually entails. It is not enough for Ministers to review our policy towards China behind closed doors; the British people deserve transparency and Parliament deserves answers.
Andrew Rosindell
I will make some progress, then come to the hon. Member if there is time.
I begin with the issue of Taiwan-Republic of China. Beijing’s increasingly assertive behaviour towards Taiwan—including military activity around the island, airspace incursions and naval operations—is a cause of growing concern. I ask the Minister: does the UK remain committed to the One China policy? If so, how do the Government intend to balance that position with our strong interest in supporting Taiwan’s democracy and the principle that the future of Taiwan should be determined peacefully and without coercion? The people of Taiwan should have the freedom to shape their own future without the threat of force. What steps are the Government taking, alongside the United States, Japan and Australia, to reduce tensions and deter any escalation in the Taiwan strait? Taiwan is a proud democracy and deserves to have its freedom. It should not be coerced—and, as an ally of Taiwan, we should certainly be standing shoulder to shoulder with it.
Next, I would like to say a few words about the belt and road initiative. Beijing claims that that programme is about infrastructure and development, but in reality it serves as a tool for strategic dominance and debt entrapment across Africa, Asia, and even parts of Europe. We have seen the consequences of that so-called investment: developing nations find themselves shackled by unsustainable debt, forced to hand over key infrastructure and strategic assets when they cannot meet Beijing’s demands. What is the Government’s strategy to counter that growing influence? How are we supporting our Commonwealth partners and other vulnerable nations to resist that economic model, and will the Minister tell us what alternative we are offering to the developing world, to avoid those nations being trapped in Beijing’s orbit?
Turning to Hong Kong, the Chinese Communist party’s flagrant violation of the Sino-British joint declaration is seriously jeopardising the “one nation, two systems” framework. Beijing has crushed political opposition, tried to silence the free press, and criminalised dissent. In light of that, I ask the Minister what our long-term strategy is for holding Beijing accountable for breaking its treaty obligations. How are we supporting British nationals overseas who have made the courageous decision to leave Hong Kong and settle in the United Kingdom, and who may be at risk of transitional repression?
The case of Jimmy Lai stands as a stark symbol of Beijing’s assault on press freedom and political dissent in Hong Kong. Lai, a British citizen and a founder of Apple Daily, has been targeted under Hong Kong’s draconian national security law for the so-called crime of defending democracy. His prosecution is not just an attack on an individual, but an attempt to silence independent journalism and intimidate anyone who dares to criticise the CCP’s actions in Hong Kong. What steps are the Government taking to protect the rights of British citizens such as Jimmy Lai who are facing politically motivated prosecutions in Hong Kong? Does the Minister agree that this politically motivated trial must end and that Jimmy Lai must be released, and what is the Government’s strategy for making the case that the national security law should be replaced?
The CCP’s human rights abuses in Xinjiang are well documented, with forced labour, mass internment, and systematic persecution of the Uyghur population. It is therefore deeply concerning that the Government appear to be resisting efforts to block the procurement of Chinese solar panels linked to forced labour through the Great British Energy Bill. I ask the Government directly: what assurances can Ministers provide that the UK’s transition to net zero will not come at the cost of complicity in modern slavery? How will the Government ensure that supply chains for renewable energy infrastructure are free from forced labour and other human rights abuses?
As the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out in her recent speech, the idea of achieving net zero by 2050 while relying heavily on Chinese technology and supply chains is “fantasy politics”. We cannot afford an over-reliance on China, as should have become clear following the pandemic. What steps are the Government taking to reduce strategic dependence on China, particularly in critical industries such as energy, telecommunications and rare earth minerals?
The proposed Chinese super-embassy in London raises concerns about Beijing’s growing influence in the UK. The unprecedented size and scope of that facility has prompted worries about potential security risks and pressure on Chinese dissidents. Reports of covert Chinese police stations in the UK add to those fears. Have the Government assessed the national security risks involved, and will they consider restricting or scaling down that proposal? More broadly, what steps are the Government taking to prevent foreign powers from using British soil for covert operations or political intimidation? I want to make the case again—as my party has said before—that China should be on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme.
Finally, I must raise the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s recent visit to China. What, if any, assurances did the Chancellor seek on human rights during her visit on Hong Kong, the Uyghurs or Taiwan and how do the Government intend to ensure that any future economic engagement with China does not compromise our strategic interests? China presents one of the big geopolitical challenges of our age, not just to Britain, but to the entire free world; we cannot afford to be naive. Engagement must be grounded in realism, not wishful thinking. We must work with our allies to check aggression and defend our democratic values. The British people deserve to know where their Government stand, and the Government must be prepared to act and not just talk.
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: Travel Advice
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for calling me to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. It is a pleasure to serve under you for the first time. I commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for raising this issue on the Floor of the House today. It is an issue that most MPs never hear about and never think about. The public do not know about this issue, and he has done us all a huge service today by raising this topic and allowing us to hear about what happened in the tragic case of Hudson, who died in 2023 at the age of only 24 in Ecuador, and how carbon monoxide poisoning could happen to anybody. It is not just something that has happened once; it can happen over and over again, and we need cross-party action to deal with it. I know that the Minister will take on board all the points raised by hon. Members to ensure that we do not close down this debate and move on to other issues, but that we make the necessary changes to protect the safety of British travellers abroad.
Furthermore, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said, there are risks domestically in the United Kingdom. A large number of people also die from carbon monoxide poisoning in the UK, a possibility unbeknown to most people. The debate has triggered something in my mind; many years ago, I had constituents who died in a similar situation, and it probably happens more often than we realise. Action is needed, and I hope that the Minister will trigger Government action to ensure that Hudson’s tragic death was not in vain and that others will live because of what happened to him. We must learn the lessons from that tragedy.
I again commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for raising this issue. I also thank other hon. Members who have made powerful contributions, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—I had the pleasure of visiting his constituency only last Friday. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke powerfully about the effects of this issue in Northern Ireland, and I have already mentioned the hon. Member for West Dorset. I feel that there is cross-party consensus in the room that action is needed. I thank Hudson’s family and friends who have come here today. They have our heartfelt sympathy for their tragic loss, and we hope that today will be the start of a serious change that will save lives in the future.
I will make some formal remarks on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. We know that carbon monoxide poisoning is often misdiagnosed—or, worse, not diagnosed at all—and the number of deaths from that awful occurrence could be far greater than we know. Many deaths abroad do not even appear in national or international statistics, and we do not know for sure how many people die from this awful situation. Most post-mortem tests are not fully conducted, or not conducted at all. Do the Government have any estimate for how many Britons have died from carbon monoxide poisoning overseas in recent years? Are those statistics available—and if not, why not? Perhaps the Minister could tell us that in his closing remarks.
According to the all-party carbon monoxide group, 40 people die and thousands are injured every year in the UK from carbon monoxide poisoning. If that is happening in this country, with relatively strong gas safety regulations, what about the domestic risks to people living in our own country, as well as to holidaymakers and those staying in properties with unknown safety standards abroad? That certainly applied in the case of Hudson in a home stay, which I imagine involves far greater risks than staying in hotel accommodation. As we heard from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, carbon monoxide can affect anyone. If, for £20, we can know that the place we are residing in is safe, I think that is worth the investment. We need all travellers to take that sound advice.
Have the Government evaluated how the risks compare for British people travelling to countries with different safety standards? Standards are not the same all over the world. Having been to Quito, I am sure that Ecuador is an example of that; it is a very different part of the world and standards differ. It is important that people understand, when they go to far-away destinations, what risks are prevalent. We need to make people aware of such risks before they travel. Will the Minister look at this issue and let us know his findings?
Travellers booking through travel agencies may receive safety information, but that does not necessarily apply to those arranging trips independently. What more can the Government do to ensure that all British travellers, regardless of how they book their accommodation, are aware of the risks involved? The FCDO’s travel advice is widely used and trusted. Would it not be logical to expand the inclusion of advice on carbon monoxide poisoning to all destinations with inadequate gas safety regulations, rather than to a handful of countries where tragic deaths have occurred?
Portable carbon monoxide alarms, as has been mentioned, are inexpensive, easy to pack and widely recommended by the experts. Surely the Government should be encouraging their use in the same way that they promote other basic travel safety measures. We have seen how determined campaigners are working to raise awareness of that fact, including Cathy Foley and her family through the Hudson’s Pack Safe appeal. The Government should move quickly on the work that is being done now to promote this serious risk and state clearly what can be done.
The Safer Tourism Foundation and the all-party carbon monoxide group have made constructive recommendations to improve public understanding. How are the Government working with those organisations to strengthen their approach, and what discussions have the Government had with travel industry representatives, including airlines, tour operators and accommodation providers, to explore ways to improve safety messaging for holidaymakers across the world? It is not about creating unnecessary alarm, but about ensuring that British travellers have the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about their safety. We already provide advice on issues ranging from food hygiene to local crime risks, so is it not sensible to have the same kind of advice for treating the potential for carbon monoxide poisoning and to treat it with the same level of seriousness as we do other possible risks to travellers abroad?
This is a conversation about simple, practical steps that can and will save lives. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to outline what action the Government will take to help keep British travellers safe. I again thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and all Members who have contributed to the debate. I particularly thank Hudson’s family. Let us leave today in the knowledge that the debate has changed history, and that, from now on, the British people will know, and the Government will advise them, that they must take the adequate precautions that could save their lives and those of their loved ones.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The NATO alliance stands at the cornerstone of our defence and has been essential to the security of the free world. Given the importance of the Indo-Pacific security alliance, strengthening co-operation and dialogue with key allies in the region has been paramount, and our military base on Diego Garcia is a vital British-American strategic asset. However, Ministers have failed to give answers to questions about its future, or about the costs involved in the proposed treaty with Mauritius. Will the Minister give one straight answer? Will he make a commitment to the House to wait until President Trump is in office and has had time to discuss this deal with the new Administration before finalising any agreement with Mauritius—yes or no?
Stephen Doughty
The shadow Minister is right about the importance of security in the Indo-Pacific. Indeed, when we see North Korean troops fighting in Russia and Ukraine, when we see Iranian missiles being used and when we see military companies elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region supplying Russia, it is crucial that we see global security as one. As you know, Mr Speaker, I have answered many questions about the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Our deal secures the future security of the base on Diego Garcia, and it has support across the US Administration and across the United States national security apparatus. We will come forward with details in due course.
Pakistan: Freedom of Religion
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I congratulate my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this vital debate in the Chamber and on continuing the noble work of his predecessor, our former colleague Fiona Bruce, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. It is a privilege to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition.
Pakistan is a Commonwealth partner, and our paths have been intertwined for an important part of our shared history. The UK and Pakistan have a close and long-standing relationship underpinned by strong links between our peoples, especially through the Commonwealth of Nations.
I have been intrigued—and pleased, to be honest—to hear the passion with which Members from both sides of the House have spoken. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) spoke passionately about the persecution of the Ahmadi people. While the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I rarely agree on things, he spoke passionately about his own community and quoted what the Ahmadi community says: “Love for all, hate for none.” Could a single Member of the House ever disagree with that?
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) represents a large community with the mosque in Morden— I know the mosque he referred to—which I think is part of his constituency. I have learned a lot about the Ahmadi community this afternoon. It is deeply distressing to hear about some of the incidents that have occurred. The hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) spoke from experience, having represented the Government— I assume Her Majesty’s Government—in Islamabad as a diplomat; I thank him for his service. He relayed his experience and gave examples of some of the horrendous persecution that has taken place. I went to Pakistan as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee some years ago. I think that we are united in the House in standing up for freedom of religion and wanting to see a change. Some of the incidents and persecutions in Pakistan that we have heard about are completely wrong.
The 1956 constitution of Pakistan included liberties for people to profess their religion “freely”. However, today, freedom of self-expression is subject to article 19 of the constitution. According to this year’s Open Doors world watch list, Pakistan is the seventh most dangerous nation in the world to reside in as a Christian. Churches have endured regular attacks, and those with strong community outreach have faced severe rights violations. There is also concern about career prospects being more limited for Christians than for others.
The Minister will be aware that the previous Government established the Coalition for Religious Equality and Inclusive Development, a British Government-funded multi-country programme that has implemented a project in Pakistan to protect minorities who work as sewage and sanitation workers. Can this House have the Minister’s assurance that the work of that organisation will continue under the new Government?
Since the 1980s, Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have become more and more severe and oppressive. Ahmadis have been subject to blasphemy laws that carry the punishment of three years imprisonment and severe fines, the most notable of which is ordinance XX, which prohibits Ahmadis from publicly practising their Islamic faith and forbids them from using sacred texts for prayer. That simply cannot be right. Ahmadis have been denied identity cards and are coerced into signing faith-related documents.
Ministers in previous Governments have raised the issue of the Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan and with Pakistan’s Foreign Minister and high commissioner. Given that there have been several cases of brutal extrajudicial killings of Ahmadi Muslims in recent months, some being high profile members of their community, I hope that we will receive the Minister’s reassurance that that will remain the case, and that Ministers continue to press our counterparts in Islamabad and the high commissioner here in London about the issues raised in today’s debate.
Despite making up only 2% of the Pakistani population, Christians are subject to roughly a quarter of all accusations of blasphemy. Anyone openly calling for reform of blasphemy laws is openly threatened by radicals. According to Associated Press News on 5 September 2023, in August last year at least 17 churches were set on fire in Jaranwala. Hundreds of houses were attacked and hundreds of Christians fled from their homes, subsequent to inaccurate accusations of blasphemy. I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary at that time raised these attacks against Christians in Jaranwala with Pakistan’s Prime Minister last September. Additionally, that August, Lord Ahmad, the then Foreign Office Minister, wrote to Pakistan’s caretaker Foreign Minister urging the Government to ensure the safety of the Christian community following these atrocious attacks.
Such reprisals are not restricted to Christians and Ahmadi Muslims. Unfortunately, Hindus too have been subjected to increasing violence. In July 2023, a Hindu temple in the Sindh province of Pakistan was attacked, and in June 2022, a Hindu temple in Karachi was destroyed. According to the National Council of Churches in Pakistan, not just since the adoption of the 1973 constitution nor since the turn of this century but annually, as many as 1,000 Christian and Hindu girls are kidnapped. There are also reports of Christian children being obligated to attend Islamic lessons at their local madrassahs, while Christian teaching is restricted to the home. I hope that the Government are once again raising these concerns with our counterparts in the Pakistani Government.
Article 4 of the Commonwealth charter, which I am sure the Minister will know, states the need to promote religious freedom. Whether it is women who have been snatched from their homes and forced to profess a religion that they do not follow, or men who are targeted through blasphemy charges, there are clearly issues that need to be addressed most urgently. Religion has provided a bedrock for the Pakistani people and serves as a source of motivation for the betterment of society, and all must be free to pursue their beliefs without fear.
While I have the opportunity, I will commend the work of my friend—a friend to many in this House—Fiona Bruce, the former Member for Congleton, whom I mentioned earlier. She dedicated many years of her time in this place to fighting for freedom of religion or belief and against the persecution of minorities who wish to worship freely. One of the towering achievements of the previous Government was to appoint the United Kingdom’s first ever special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I therefore ask the Minister to assure the House that His Majesty’s Government will be doing the same, and that an appointment to this position will be announced very soon.
Two years ago, the Conservative Government brought together 800 faith and belief leaders and human rights activists and 100 Government delegations for the international ministerial conference on freedom of religion to agree a plan to encourage and defend those fundamental inalienable rights. The outcome of the conference bore witness to the pledges of 47 Governments, international organisations and other entities to take action in support of freedom of religion or belief. Through the soft power of our diplomatic network, the previous Government were able to solidify coalitions of support to protect freedom of religion or belief for all within international bodies and through the multilateral framework, hardening obligations for states to uphold their human rights obligations. Once again, I sincerely hope that the Government will continue the work of the Conservative Government in the previous Parliament.
On a separate note, earlier this year, the Conservative Government put on record their serious concerns about the fairness and lack of inclusivity of Pakistan’s recent election. We were clear we regretted that not all parties were allowed to contest the elections, and that legal processes were used to prevent some political leaders from participation and the use of recognisable party symbols. I am sure the House is also aware that restrictions were imposed on internet access on polling day and that there were significant delays to the reporting of results and claims of irregularities in the counting process. The new Labour Government need to urge the authorities in Pakistan to uphold fundamental human rights, including those I and many other Members have touched on, as well as other important freedoms including free access to information.
The rule of law must be unflinchingly upheld. To be crystal clear, that includes the right to a fair trial, which, for the avoidance of doubt, means adherence to due process within an independent, transparent judicial system, free from interference. To that end, will the Minister say what discussions on those issues the new Government have had with the Government of Pakistan? Will he say what Labour’s position is on the imprisonment and general treatment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan? As he will know, that has caused huge divisions within the Pakistani community.
To conclude, I believe the United Kingdom has been at the vanguard of defending freedom of religion and belief, civil liberties and human rights. We urge His Majesty’s Government to continue this important work to protect all those who choose to practise their faith, and who have the right—and must continue to have the right—to do so without fear and in freedom. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, there can be no turning back in our defence of freedom of liberties, the rule of law and the right of peoples throughout our world to share and practise a religion without fear. I hope His Majesty’s Government will follow that tradition.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Government appear to be in a complete tailspin over whether they will release the costs that will fall to the British taxpayer as a result of the rushed deal to give away the British Chagos islands. Given the reported trip to Mauritius by the special envoy, Jonathan Powell, can the Minister at least confirm today which budget the costs will come from, including whether they intend to use the aid budget? Will she tell the House how much it will cost each year and in total, and if the British Chagossians will actually have a genuine say? Would it not make more sense to keep these strategically important islands under the Crown, rather than the secretive deal negotiated? No deal is better than a bad deal.
Anneliese Dodds
My understanding is that there were actually 10 rounds of negotiations under the Conservatives, but we did not see the UK reaching the necessary agreements. This is a frankly bizarre argument coming from the Opposition. All the details of the situation are in the public domain, and quite rightly so. This is part of the UK ensuring that we follow international law.
St Helena: UK Immigration
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Fundamentally, as a result of this agreement, St Helena has agreed to take responsibility for any theoretical migrants who arrive, but I draw him back to what I said earlier: Mauritius would take responsibility for any migrants who arrived after the agreement of the treaty, which we will seek to finalise following parliamentary scrutiny.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Minister really should understand that the British overseas territories are self-governing democracies, and they must make decisions about their own islands’ governance. Has the Legislative Council of St Helena voted in favour of this agreement? Have the people of St Helena been consulted? What impact will the influx of people potentially have on this small island territory of only 4,500 people, and will the agreement have any impact on Tristan da Cunha and Ascension Island, which, as the Minister knows, form part of the overall British overseas territories?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; I know he takes a very keen interest in this matter. We have discussed the overseas territories on many occasions, and he knows how seriously I take their democracy and autonomy. That is why it is important to reiterate to the House that this agreement was freely entered into by the Government of St Helena. They have publicly welcomed it profusely and explained why it is beneficial. Obviously, they are responsible for their internal processes within St Helena. We will continue to work with the Government of St Helena, their representatives and, indeed, their Attorney General as we move forward with the agreement. If I may, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on the point he raises about Tristan da Cunha and Ascension, but the agreement is primarily about St Helena because of the facilities that are available there.
British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee. In relation to the global south, he will have seen that the Government of India welcomed the agreement, and that India committed to continued work with Mauritius and like-minded partners, including the United Kingdom—that was important. The agreement that has been struck can be extended upon completion of the lease. As I said before, we are committed to working with the Chagossians —that is why we have a trust fund set up. Of course, now that Mauritius will effectively be in charge upon completion of the treaty, it is saying that it will work with the Chagossians on resettlements—not on Diego Garcia, but on some of the other islands in the surrounds.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
This is a shameful day for British democracy and a dark moment for human rights in the United Kingdom. Already, the people of the Chagos islands have been forcibly removed from their homeland; today, this Government are handing their home over to a foreign country that is in cahoots with a hostile nation. The Foreign Secretary must commit to allowing the British Chagossian people the right of self-determination—the same right we afford to every other British overseas territory. Are the people of the Chagos islands of less worth than the Falkland Islanders, the Gibraltarians or the people of any other British overseas territory? Will he commit to allowing the people of the Chagos islands to decide their own destiny?
Mr Lammy
I think the hon. Gentleman knows better than that, having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Mauritius. He knows that these discussions began under the last Government; he will also have read the ICJ judgment and will know it is important that this deal was struck. The last Government left it to us to do it; we did it, and we are proud of it.